Even the prerelease stuff. You need to return it, so that we (the readers) believe that you are presenting facts and opinions, unbiased by compensation (including relatively low-value equipment and patch cables). The converse is, you keep the equipment, and we (the readers) become suspicious that you write your reviews a little more favorably so that you can get free equipment.
Do you don't. At least, I hope not. You are already getting compensation in the form of early access to the product. If you got to keep the product or any other form of compensation, it would hurt your credibility as a review.
Low credibility = reduced eyeballs = no web site
And then, you don't even get to try out the new toys anymore.
Re:Independent review sites? There's a sweet spot.
on
ATi Radeon 9800 Pro
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There must be a very interesting formula at work for early release reviews. The product suppliers want good press and a wide audience. The reviewers want a larger audience for their web site, and possibly fame or a chance to try out the next big thing --first! The readers want interesting, informative reviews they can believe, use for purchases, and quote with authority. These forces pull early release reviews to a common middle. The product suppliers won't provide their product to a site that reports credible, but consistently unfavorable reviews. Readers won't keep reading reviews that are favorable, but consistently boring, unhelpful, or not credible --then the product supplier drops the review site for lack of audience, anyway. So, the review sites that get the chance to review new products are the ones that produce consistently interesting, informative, and favorable (or at least, not UNfavorable) reviews.
Of course, confounding this formula is PT Barnum's line "I don't care what they write about me as long as they spell my name right." Some suppliers may continue to release early products to unfavorable, but popular reviewers, just to increase the overall level of press coverage. Worse yet, since the early product is provided by the product supplier, it may have been specifically modified from the "retail" version to work better on benchmarks, just for the review. For that matter, the reviewer may be tempted to soften a review for the sake of a site advertiser's new product.
Still, what's a consumer to do? I guess we have to take early reviews with a dose of skepticism. Before we make a purchasing decision, we have to wait for a reviewer to buy an off the shelf unit and test it. That's the best way we can be sure the review is more in our interests than the product supplier's.
I believe the previous replies are on the right track here. The actual crime is fraud (and hacking, of course). The criminal sold access to a privilege or service to which he did not, himself, have lawful access. You might think of it as if he obtained access to a membership in an exclusive golf course, then tried to sell that membership to someone else. Of course, the golf course and club still retain all the hard assets, but the membership in the club has a certain value, too.
Okay, I searched the discussion for similar keywords, and I didn't quite find the point I make here.
Conferences lend credibility to the viewpoints of those who present at the conference. In fact, conferences are, in some ways, a way to highlight the ideas and organizations that best represent the conference subjects. In this way, conferences are not about free speech and open discource; they are about promoting "best" or "most interesting" ideas, practices, opinions, and organizations.
Here's my point: If Microsoft presents at the conference, the conference lends some credibility to Microsoft's role in Open Source Software in Government. Even if the conference goes poorly for Microsoft, Microsoft is still seen as participating in the process by conference observers: namely, the US government and the media at large. Whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's position or ideas on the topic, the conference lends credibility to Microsoft's voice on the topic. In that sense, the conference is well advise to carefully consider whether to extend this stamp of credibility.
What will remain is a universe full of black holes, which after trillions of years will explode to leave nothing but dark energy.
So, the universe will turn into one big paradise for goths?
Re:RADAR absorbing paint for cars doesn't work
on
Blacker Than Black
·
· Score: 1
It wouldn't work anyway. Your radiator and headlights reflect sufficient radar to get your speed. The light-absorbing qualities of the paint won't help either, since laser speed detectors use the reflection from your license plate. Covering the license plate with laser-light-absorbing plastic won't help you, either. However, there seems to be no restriction on laser-based jamming, if you want to go that route (pun intended).
I suppose the continuing sluggish growth in the US economy has nothing at all to do with it either. Isn't this the same sort of argument that the RIAA used to explain the drop in CD sales? "The competition from free sources is reducing our sales!" In fact, slow growth in the economy impacts all kinds of sales, including Microsoft's products.
I see how the article describes the problem, especially
"About 70 percent of all the queries were either identical, or repeat requests for addresses within the same domain."
What I don't see is solid suggestions for improvement, except for indirect suggestions to name server operators to clean up their act. Perhaps the root servers could be made smarter, or buffered, so that the root servers cache the repeat requests and return a response before the root name server has to handle it. Maybe the root servers should just refuse to honor the most common unnecessary queries. That might set off alarms in the lower level DNS servers, which could get some real action across the board.
Who needs a social engineer to get the password, when we have the fine folks at Sprint around.
Re:Differences between speech (free and protected)
on
MonsterHut Jammed for Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.
Actually, that's not correct. The US Constitution has no specific reference to protected speech. Protected speech is a term that is synonymous with free speech, in the sense that all speech which is protected from restriction by the government is free speech. In particular, political speech is not the only form of protected speech.
Some forms of speech (obscenity or threats) have no right to protection at all. Corporations have the right to free, protected speech, but in a more limited form. In the case of this article and lawsuit, what the spammer puts in his ad might be unprotected speech because of false content, but the case seems to be based on misleading email recipients about the opt-in nature of the email.
The following links offer some insight on free speech and protected speech.
Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.
For those who don't know already, Darci Wood is the LabMistress on LabMistress.com. You may have seen her comments on Slashdot, especially regarding stories on Kevin Mitnick.
My question:
Where and when did you two meet? How did you end up spending so much time together?
You're right; 10 billion would be plenty of numbers for some time to come. However, the top 3 of the 10 digits is strictly limited to a geographic area; in this case the NYC area codes: 212, 718, 917, 646 and 347. That's not so bad: that gives you 5 times the 7 digit combinations, or about 50 million, right? But wait, some of those 7 digit combinations are illegal. For example, numbers in the range 555-0100 to 555-0199 are reserved for use as "dummy" numbers in the entertainment industry. Some other prefixes are reserved by large corporate PBX's, or because the numbers are blocked by equipment that still remembers the 7-digit dialing days (000-####). That's why the FCC is considering a proposal from ATIS to change that 3 digit prefix (123-####) to 4 digits (1234-####). That would allow us to have about 100,000,000 numbers (less the 5555- numbers, etc.) in each area code --on the order of 500,000,000 numbers for New York City, alone.
If I may a copy of something I bought to give to my friend, is that stealing? It used to be covered under fair use, especially since neither of us makes any money on it. If I were to share the same content with just my friend over a network using an IM or ICQ or FTP or eMail, that's pretty much the same transaction in another form. If I share that same content with a number of people who I don't know quite so well, how did that suddenly become stealing?
Read it again: the RIAA wants to collect a list of files, and who (IP address) is sharing them. With that information, the RIAA can pressure the ISP's to shutdown users. If the RIAA gets this kind of information in secret "bursts," it's okay if some exploits or virii get shut down.
If this Gobbles virus/worm is real, it should be easy enough to find. What's more, it should be easy enough to write a counter exploit that hunts down and removes the Gobbles virus/worm. Perhaps, the counter exploit could even propogate in the same way as Gobbles --a bit like an innoculation. I don't know how to do it, and I can't google-out a link to such an effort; does one exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Even the prerelease stuff. You need to return it, so that we (the readers) believe that you are presenting facts and opinions, unbiased by compensation (including relatively low-value equipment and patch cables). The converse is, you keep the equipment, and we (the readers) become suspicious that you write your reviews a little more favorably so that you can get free equipment.
When does the Peace Corps come to my neighborhood, here in the US? This would be so...*ring* Hold on... call coming in...
What's that? Peace Corps? Yes. Overseas only? I see. Nothing inside the US? Aha.*click*
Never mind.
Payola? Damn - I really wish there was some!
Do you don't. At least, I hope not. You are already getting compensation in the form of early access to the product. If you got to keep the product or any other form of compensation, it would hurt your credibility as a review.
Low credibility = reduced eyeballs = no web site
And then, you don't even get to try out the new toys anymore.
There must be a very interesting formula at work for early release reviews. The product suppliers want good press and a wide audience. The reviewers want a larger audience for their web site, and possibly fame or a chance to try out the next big thing --first! The readers want interesting, informative reviews they can believe, use for purchases, and quote with authority. These forces pull early release reviews to a common middle. The product suppliers won't provide their product to a site that reports credible, but consistently unfavorable reviews. Readers won't keep reading reviews that are favorable, but consistently boring, unhelpful, or not credible --then the product supplier drops the review site for lack of audience, anyway. So, the review sites that get the chance to review new products are the ones that produce consistently interesting, informative, and favorable (or at least, not UNfavorable) reviews.
Of course, confounding this formula is PT Barnum's line "I don't care what they write about me as long as they spell my name right." Some suppliers may continue to release early products to unfavorable, but popular reviewers, just to increase the overall level of press coverage. Worse yet, since the early product is provided by the product supplier, it may have been specifically modified from the "retail" version to work better on benchmarks, just for the review. For that matter, the reviewer may be tempted to soften a review for the sake of a site advertiser's new product.
Still, what's a consumer to do? I guess we have to take early reviews with a dose of skepticism. Before we make a purchasing decision, we have to wait for a reviewer to buy an off the shelf unit and test it. That's the best way we can be sure the review is more in our interests than the product supplier's.
The FBI has reported to the Justice Department that it will no longer need or request individual warrants to wiretap individual phone numbers.
I believe the previous replies are on the right track here. The actual crime is fraud (and hacking, of course). The criminal sold access to a privilege or service to which he did not, himself, have lawful access. You might think of it as if he obtained access to a membership in an exclusive golf course, then tried to sell that membership to someone else. Of course, the golf course and club still retain all the hard assets, but the membership in the club has a certain value, too.
Okay, I searched the discussion for similar keywords, and I didn't quite find the point I make here.
Conferences lend credibility to the viewpoints of those who present at the conference. In fact, conferences are, in some ways, a way to highlight the ideas and organizations that best represent the conference subjects. In this way, conferences are not about free speech and open discource; they are about promoting "best" or "most interesting" ideas, practices, opinions, and organizations.
Here's my point: If Microsoft presents at the conference, the conference lends some credibility to Microsoft's role in Open Source Software in Government. Even if the conference goes poorly for Microsoft, Microsoft is still seen as participating in the process by conference observers: namely, the US government and the media at large. Whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's position or ideas on the topic, the conference lends credibility to Microsoft's voice on the topic. In that sense, the conference is well advise to carefully consider whether to extend this stamp of credibility.
It wouldn't work anyway. Your radiator and headlights reflect sufficient radar to get your speed. The light-absorbing qualities of the paint won't help either, since laser speed detectors use the reflection from your license plate. Covering the license plate with laser-light-absorbing plastic won't help you, either. However, there seems to be no restriction on laser-based jamming, if you want to go that route (pun intended).
I suppose the continuing sluggish growth in the US economy has nothing at all to do with it either. Isn't this the same sort of argument that the RIAA used to explain the drop in CD sales? "The competition from free sources is reducing our sales!" In fact, slow growth in the economy impacts all kinds of sales, including Microsoft's products.
I see how the article describes the problem, especially
"About 70 percent of all the queries were either identical, or repeat requests for addresses within the same domain."
What I don't see is solid suggestions for improvement, except for indirect suggestions to name server operators to clean up their act. Perhaps the root servers could be made smarter, or buffered, so that the root servers cache the repeat requests and return a response before the root name server has to handle it. Maybe the root servers should just refuse to honor the most common unnecessary queries. That might set off alarms in the lower level DNS servers, which could get some real action across the board.
Who needs a social engineer to get the password, when we have the fine folks at Sprint around.
Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.
Actually, that's not correct. The US Constitution has no specific reference to protected speech. Protected speech is a term that is synonymous with free speech, in the sense that all speech which is protected from restriction by the government is free speech. In particular, political speech is not the only form of protected speech.
Some forms of speech (obscenity or threats) have no right to protection at all. Corporations have the right to free, protected speech, but in a more limited form. In the case of this article and lawsuit, what the spammer puts in his ad might be unprotected speech because of false content, but the case seems to be based on misleading email recipients about the opt-in nature of the email. The following links offer some insight on free speech and protected speech.
Free Speech the First Amendment and Censorship
FreedomForum.org - The First Amendment
Do you suppose they also sent out spam ads for spam filters?
Fraud is not protected speech. There is no free speech issue for such cases.
Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.
For those who don't know already, Darci Wood is the LabMistress on LabMistress.com. You may have seen her comments on Slashdot, especially regarding stories on Kevin Mitnick.
My question:
Where and when did you two meet? How did you end up spending so much time together?
about Slashdot: These great stories about towns that pass silly laws to ban things that don't even cause problems, yet.
You're right; 10 billion would be plenty of numbers for some time to come. However, the top 3 of the 10 digits is strictly limited to a geographic area; in this case the NYC area codes: 212, 718, 917, 646 and 347. That's not so bad: that gives you 5 times the 7 digit combinations, or about 50 million, right? But wait, some of those 7 digit combinations are illegal. For example, numbers in the range 555-0100 to 555-0199 are reserved for use as "dummy" numbers in the entertainment industry. Some other prefixes are reserved by large corporate PBX's, or because the numbers are blocked by equipment that still remembers the 7-digit dialing days (000-####). That's why the FCC is considering a proposal from ATIS to change that 3 digit prefix (123-####) to 4 digits (1234-####). That would allow us to have about 100,000,000 numbers (less the 5555- numbers, etc.) in each area code --on the order of 500,000,000 numbers for New York City, alone.
If I may a copy of something I bought to give to my friend, is that stealing? It used to be covered under fair use, especially since neither of us makes any money on it. If I were to share the same content with just my friend over a network using an IM or ICQ or FTP or eMail, that's pretty much the same transaction in another form. If I share that same content with a number of people who I don't know quite so well, how did that suddenly become stealing?
Where did this list come from? How can I verify its legitimacy? Even more important: how can I discover new addresses which should be blocked?
Last time I was in the Microcenter store in Atlanta (the one on Powers Ferry Road), they had several copies of this book on sale for $5.
Read it again: the RIAA wants to collect a list of files, and who (IP address) is sharing them. With that information, the RIAA can pressure the ISP's to shutdown users. If the RIAA gets this kind of information in secret "bursts," it's okay if some exploits or virii get shut down.
If this Gobbles virus/worm is real, it should be easy enough to find. What's more, it should be easy enough to write a counter exploit that hunts down and removes the Gobbles virus/worm. Perhaps, the counter exploit could even propogate in the same way as Gobbles --a bit like an innoculation. I don't know how to do it, and I can't google-out a link to such an effort; does one exist?
Moreover, there's only one drive (a Samsung 120G) that's at this $1/G price point. Every drive with a larger or smaller capacity is more than $1/G.